N HE United States Court of Appeals for the First …...graduation. 1 All parties have consented to...

No. 19-2005

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

_______________

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Case No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB

_______________

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION AND 40 OTHER HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT

OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE _______________

PETER MCDONOUGH

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

One Dupont Circle N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 939-9361 [email protected]

Counsel for American Council on Education

May 21, 2020

JESSICA L. ELLSWORTH

STEPHANIE J. GOLD

JO-ANN TAMILA SAGAR

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5600 [email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case: 19-2005 Document: 00117592473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Entry ID: 6340572

i

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Amici curiae American Council on Education and the 40 other higher

education associations listed in the Addendum each states that it is a non-profit

association, with no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10

percent or more of its stock.

/s/ Jessica L. Ellsworth Jessica L. Ellsworth


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................ 1

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4

I. THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY, WITHIN BROAD LIMITS, DEFINE THE DIVERSITY THAT WILL PRODUCE THE EDUCATION BENEFITS THEY SEEK FOR ALL STUDENTS AND USE THEIR ADMISSION PROCESS TO FURTHER THAT GOAL ............................... 4

A. Student Diversity, Including Racial Diversity, Advances Learning, Enriches Campus Environments, And Prepares Students To Thrive In An Increasingly Diverse Workforce And Society ................................................................................................... 4

B. For That Reason, Student Diversity Is A Compelling Interest That Can Justify The Consideration And Use Of Race In College And University Admissions ..................................................... 7

C. Because The Compelling Interest At Stake Is Fundamentally Educational In Nature And Requires Educational Judgment, Courts Owe Considerable Deference To Each Institution’s Concept Of Diversity............................................................................. 9

II. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF APPLICANTS, RECOGNIZING THAT HOLISTIC REVIEW IS A CRITICAL TOOL FOR ACHIEVING THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY .......................................... 13

A. Holistic Review, Which Involves The Consideration Of Many Academic And Non-Academic Factors, Allows Institutions To Fully Evaluate Each Applicant, Including His Or Her Potential To Contribute Through Varying Experiences And Perspectives ........ 13


TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

iii

B. Admissions Decisions Under A Holistic Review Framework Cannot Be Reduced To An Easy-To-Predict Formula ............................................................................................... 18

III. BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW .......................................................... 23

A. Decades Ago, Harvard Helped Establish The Basic Framework For Holistic Review That Has Been Repeatedly Approved By The Supreme Court ............................................................................. 23

B. Harvard’s Current-Day Admissions Policies—Which Are Also Based In Individualized, Holistic Review—Are Consistent With Well-Established Supreme Court Precedent .............................. 24

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 27

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ADDENDUM


iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES:

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) ........................................................................................ 8, 10

Fisher v. University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) .................................................................................passim

Goodman v. Bowdoin Coll., 380 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 24

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) ............................................................................................ 24

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) .....................................................................................passim

Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589 (1967) ........................................................................................ 7, 10

Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) ...................................................................................... 10, 11

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) .....................................................................................passim

Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) ............................................................................................ 10

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) .................................................................................... 7, 9, 10

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ...................................................................................... 12, 13

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

About NMMI, New Mexico Military Inst., https://www.nmmi.edu/about-nmmi/ (last visited May 21, 2020) ..................... 21


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

v

Amy N. Addams et al., Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., Roadmap to Diversity: Integrating Holistic Review Practices into Medical School Admissions Processes (2010), available at http://www.cossa.org/diversity/reports/Integrating_Holistic_Review_Practices.pdf. .................................................................................................. 11

Admission Review Factors and Process, Univ. of Md., https://admissions.umd.edu/apply/admission-review-factors-and-process (last visited May 21, 2020) .................................................................... 16

Natasha Bach, Why the University of Chicago Is Dropping Its SAT/ACT Test Requirement, Fortune (June 15, 2018), http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/university-of-chicago-drops-act-sat-test-requirement-for-admissions/ ........................................................................ 20

Joseph R. Betancourt et al., Defining Cultural Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care, 118 Pub. Health Rep. 293 (2003) .............................. 21

Arthur L. Coleman & Jamie Lewis Keith, CollegeBoard & EducationCounsel, Understanding Holistic Review in Higher Education Admissions: Guiding Principles and Model Illustrations(2018), available athttps://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/understanding-holistic-review-he-admissions.pdf ................................................................................... 18

Lorelle L. Espinosa et al., Am. Council on Educ., Race, Class, & College Access: Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape (2015), available at http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Class-and-College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-Shifting-Legal-Landscape.pdf .............................................. 19, 20

Nisha C. Gottfredson et al., Does Diversity at Undergraduate Institutions Influence Student Outcomes?, 1 J. Diversity Higher Educ. 80 (2008) ..................................................................................................... 4

Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330 (2002) ............... 5, 6



Page(s)

vi

Sylvia Hurtado & Linda DeAngelo, Linking Diversity and Civic-Minded Practices with Student Outcomes: New Evidence from National Surveys, 98 Liberal Educ., no. 2, 2012 at 14 ......................................... 6

David F. Labaree, A System Without A Plan: Emergence of An American System of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century, 3 Int’l J. Historiography Educ. 46 (2013) .............................................................. 13

Letter from Timothy C.J. Blanchard, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Region II, to Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton Univ. (Sept. 9, 2015), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/02086002-a.pdf ................................................................................................... 19, 22

Jerome A. Lucido, How Admissions Decisions Get Made, in Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management (Don Hollser, Bob Bontrager & Assocs. eds., 2015) ............................................................ 15, 16, 17

Penn State Undergraduate Admissions: Application Review Process for First-Year Students, Penn. State Univ., https://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/firstyear/applicationreview/ (last visited May 21, 2020) ........................................................................... 17, 20

Dawn Rhodes, University of Chicago To Stop Requiring ACT and SAT Scores for Prospective Undergraduates, Chi. Trib. (June 14, 2018), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-chicago-sat-act-20180614-story.html ................................................ 20

Gretchen W. Rigol, Coll. Bd., Admissions Decision-Making Models: How U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students (2003), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562589.pdf ............................................ 14, 15

Cecilia Capuzzi Simon, The Test-Optional Surge, N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/education/edlife/the-test-optional-surge.html ............................................................................................. 20



Page(s)

vii

Patrick T. Terenzini et al., Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom: Does It Promote Student Learning? 72 J. Higher Educ. 509 (2001) ............................................................................................................. 5

The Brown Degree: Grade Options, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/policies/grade-options (last visited May 21, 2020) .................................................................... 22

Undergraduate Admission: Admission Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon Univ., http://coursecatalog.web.cmu.edu/servicesandoptions/undergraduateadmission/ (last visited May 21, 2020) ............................................................. 16

Undergraduate Admission, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/undergraduate-admission (last visited May 21, 2020) ................................................................ 22


1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici are 41 associations of colleges, universities, educators, trustees, and

other representatives of higher education in the United States. Amici represent

public, independent, large, small, urban, rural, denominational, non-

denominational, graduate, and undergraduate institutions and faculty. For decades,

amici have worked to advance student diversity and to open wide the gates of

higher education to talented students of all races and backgrounds.

Amicus American Council on Education (“ACE”) represents all higher

education sectors. The more than 1,500 institutions who are members of ACE

reflect the extraordinary breadth and contributions of degree-granting colleges and

universities in the United States. Founded in 1918, ACE seeks to foster high

standards in higher education, believing a strong higher education system to be the

cornerstone of a democratic society. Among its initiatives, ACE had a major role

in establishing the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and

American Life, chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter, which issued One-

Third of a Nation (1988), a report on minority matriculation, retention, and

graduation.

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money intended to fund the brief’s preparation or submission; and no person other than amici contributed money intended to fund the brief’s preparation or submission.


2

ACE is joined in this amicus brief by the following organizations:

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education;

American Association of Colleges of Nursing;

American Association of Community Colleges;

American Association of State Colleges and Universities;

American Association of University Professors;

American Dental Education Association;

American Indian Higher Education Consortium;

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association;

Association of American Colleges and Universities;

Association of American Law Schools;

Association of American Medical Colleges;

Association of American Universities;

Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities;

Association of Community College Trustees;

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges;

Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities;

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities;

College Board;

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources;

Council for Christian Colleges & Universities;

Council for Opportunity in Education;

Council of Graduate Schools;

Council of Independent Colleges;

EDUCAUSE;

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities;

Law School Admission Council;

Middle States Commission on Higher Education;

NASPA - Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education;

National Association for College Admission Counseling;


3

National Association of College and University Business Officers;

National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education;

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities;

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators;

National Collegiate Athletic Association;

New England Commission of Higher Education;

Phi Beta Kappa;

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges;

The Common Application;

University Risk Management and Insurance Association; and

WASC Senior College and University Commission.

The Addendum explains where to find more information about each amicus.

Amici submit this brief to share perspectives and experience on issues of

diversity, and admissions in higher education overall, that are important to

understand as the Court evaluates the parties’ positions. Amici believe that a

diverse student body is essential to educational objectives of colleges and

universities, and that each institution should be able to exercise its academic

judgment to determine within broad limits the diversity that will advance its own

particular mission. Amici also believe that holistic review remains a cornerstone

for the consideration of race in admissions because it gives each applicant

individualized consideration and reduces no one to his or her race. These

principles, taken together with the evidence adduced by the parties at trial, lead

amici to conclude that the District Court’s judgment should be affirmed.


4

ARGUMENT

I. THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY, WITHIN BROAD LIMITS, DEFINE THE DIVERSITY THAT WILL PRODUCE THE EDUCATION BENEFITS THEY SEEK FOR ALL STUDENTS AND USE THEIR ADMISSION PROCESS TO FURTHER THAT GOAL.

A. Student Diversity, Including Racial Diversity, Advances Learning, Enriches Campus Environments, And Prepares Students To Thrive In An Increasingly Diverse Workforce And Society.

Student diversity improves learning outcomes and promotes academic

success—the core of higher education’s mission. “Educational policies that

support daily interactions of students with diverse peers and encourage curricular

requirements for multicultural education are shown to have the benefit of

producing academically stronger students,” that is, “students who are able to hold

more complex viewpoints that take multiple perspectives in to account.” Nisha C.

Gottfredson et al., Does Diversity at Undergraduate Institutions Influence Student

Outcomes?, 1 J. Diversity Higher Educ. 80, 94 (2008).

Both inside and outside the classroom, interactions among students of

different backgrounds introduce them to new perspectives and prompt them to

reconsider their own views in a reasoned and analytical way. Studies show that in-

class diversity significantly enhances students’ abilities both to problem-solve and

to work on group projects. See Patrick T. Terenzini et al., Racial and Ethnic

Diversity in the Classroom: Does It Promote Student Learning? 72 J. Higher Educ.


5

509, 527 (2001). And the educational gains of student diversity in less formal

settings—like dormitories or dining halls—are often even greater. Studies show

that “informal interaction with diverse peers [is] consistently influential [and

positive] on all educational outcomes,” but is “especially influential in accounting

for higher levels of intellectual engagement and self-assessed academic skills.”

Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on

Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330, 351, 359 (2002).

Student diversity also prepares students for an increasingly diverse

workforce—another one of higher education’s core missions. As the Supreme

Court has noted, “major American businesses have made clear that the skills

needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through

exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” Grutter v.

Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003). And as these businesses themselves

recognize, “[t]he rich variety of ideas, perspectives, and experiences to which both

minority and nonminority students are exposed in a diverse university setting, and

the cross-cultural interactions that they experience, are essential to the students’

ability to function in and contribute to the increasingly diverse community in the

United States.” Brief of Fortune-100 and Other Leading American Businesses as


6

Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents 9-10, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-

981).2

Finally, student diversity prepares students to participate more effectively in

our increasingly diverse and interconnected society—yet another core higher

education mission. See Gurin et al., 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. at 353. Studies have

shown that the “quality of students’ interactions with peers from different racial or

ethnic groups is associated with students’ pluralistic orientation skills, civic

awareness, and complex thinking skills for a diverse democracy.” Sylvia Hurtado

& Linda DeAngelo, Linking Diversity and Civic-Minded Practices with Student

Outcomes: New Evidence from National Surveys, 98 Liberal Educ., no. 2, 2012 at

22. In other words, effective civic participation requires exposure to a variety of

viewpoints; a robust exchange of ideas makes students better-informed jurors,

voters, and leaders. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 331-332. When college students

learn how to break down racial and other stereotypes and consider different

perspectives, they carry those lessons with them their whole lives. The individual

students and society-at-large then reap the benefits, as our citizens are better able

to consider different perspectives or opposing viewpoints and see commonality

with those from different backgrounds.

2 See also Brief of DuPont, IBM, Intel, and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering in Support of Respondents 9-12, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-981) (applying similar argument to underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields).


7

B. For That Reason, Student Diversity Is A Compelling Interest That Can Justify The Consideration And Use Of Race In College And University Admissions.

Forty years ago, in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Justice

Powell explained that “the attainment of a diverse student body . . . clearly is a

constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education.” 438 U.S.

265, 311-312 (1978) (Opinion of Powell, J.). He recognized that a diverse student

body promotes an atmosphere of “speculation, experiment and creation” that is

“essential to the quality of higher education.” Id. at 312 (quoting Sweezy v. New

Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J. concurring in the result)).

Moreover, he noted that, by enriching students’ education with a variety of

perspectives, experiences, and ideas, a university with a diverse student body helps

equip its students to be productive members of society. Id. at 313 (“[I]t is not too

much to say that the ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide

exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many

peoples.”) (quoting Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 385 U.S.

589, 603 (1967)). Accordingly, he concluded “the interest of diversity is

compelling in the context of a university’s admission program.” Id. at 314.

Echoing Justice Powell’s Bakke opinion, a majority of the Court held in

Grutter that higher education institutions have “a compelling interest in obtaining

the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Grutter, 539 U.S.


8

at 343; see also Bakke, 438 U.S. at 314 (opinion of Powell, J.) (“the interest of

diversity is compelling in the context of a university’s admissions program”).

Those benefits, the Court recognized, are “substantial,” and “not theoretical but

real.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330. “[N]umerous studies show that student body

diversity promotes learning outcomes, . . . ‘better prepares students for an

increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as

professionals.’” Id. (citation omitted). Diversity also promotes cross-racial

understanding, helps to break down stereotypes, and enables students to understand

better those who are different. Id. To seek these benefits through diversity is

properly understood to be at the core of institutions’ academic mission. Id. at 329.

By 2013, student diversity’s status as a compelling interest was so well

established that the parties in Fisher v. University of Texas did not even “ask the

Court to revisit that aspect of Grutter’s holding.” 570 U.S. 297, 311 (2013)

(“Fisher I”). Nevertheless, a few years later, the Court affirmed once more that “a

university may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of

obtaining ‘the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.’” Fisher

v. University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198, 2210 (2016) (quoting Fisher I, 570 U.S. at

310). And quoting Grutter, the Court reiterated that “enrolling a diverse student

body ‘promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes,

and enables students to better understand persons of different races.’” Id. (quoting


9

Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330). “Equally important,” the Court said, was Grutter’s

recognition that “student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and better

prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.” Id. (quoting

Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330).

In sum, in the last four decades, the Court has reaffirmed at least four times

that student diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in

college admissions. The importance of student diversity and its status as a

compelling interest cannot be seriously disputed.

C. Because The Compelling Interest At Stake Is Fundamentally Educational In Nature And Requires Educational Judgment, Courts Owe Considerable Deference To Each Institution’s Concept Of Diversity.

Just as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that student diversity is

a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in admissions, the Court has

also repeatedly reaffirmed that courts should defer to a higher education

institution’s decision to pursue student diversity and to define the diversity that

best serves the institution’s needs. Justice Powell explained in Bakke that one of

the “‘four essential freedoms’ of a university” is “to determine for itself on

academic grounds . . . who may be admitted to study.” 438 U.S. at 312 (opinion of

Powell, J.) (quoting Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 263 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in the

result)). The Grutter Court reaffirmed that a college or university’s “educational

judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which


10

we defer.” 539 U.S. at 328. The Fisher I Court similarly held that “the decision to

pursue the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity, that the

University deems integral to its mission is, in substantial measure, an academic

judgment to which . . . judicial deference is proper.” 570 U.S. at 310 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). And, most recently, the Fisher II Court

reiterated that “[c]onsiderable deference is owed to a university in defining . . .

intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity

and educational mission.” 136 S. Ct. at 2214.

This deference flows from a higher education institution’s First Amendment

right to academic freedom. As the Supreme Court has explained, colleges and

universities “occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” Grutter, 539

U.S. at 329. They protect the bedrock “freedoms of speech and thought.” Id.

Because of that important role, courts have long refrained from second-guessing

the academic judgments of colleges and universities. And, as the Supreme Court

has explained, the constitution’s protection for academic judgments extends not

only to “[t]eachers and students [who] must always remain free to inquire, to study

and to evaluate,” Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 603 (quoting Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 250

(plurality op.)), but also to “autonomous decisionmaking by the academy itself,”

Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 226 n.12 (1985), including

admissions criteria and decisions. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle


11

Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 792 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and

concurring in the judgment) (noting that the First Amendment affords universities

“particular latitude in defining diversity”). As Justice Powell put it: “The freedom

of a university to make its own judgments as to education includes the selection of

its student body.” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312 (opinion of Powell, J.).

These legal principles are grounded in practical realities. Colleges and

universities are, themselves, diverse. Amicus ACE alone represents more than

1,500 institutions, each of which has its own mission, history, geography, location,

curriculum, capabilities, and faculty. They are public or private, small or large,

urban or rural, focused on professions or the liberal arts, religious or secular, or

anything in between—factors that shape how an institution interacts with and

influences the broader world. Even within a single institution, school- or program-

specific missions can vary tremendously. What works for one graduate or

professional school may not work for an undergraduate college or even a different

graduate school at the same university. See Amy N. Addams et al., Ass’n of Am.

Med. Colls., Roadmap to Diversity: Integrating Holistic Review Practices into

Medical School Admissions Processes ix-x (2010).3 Each university’s unique

mission and context may call for the need to evaluate differently certain

3 Available at http://www.cossa.org/diversity/reports/Integrating_Holistic_Review_Practices.pdf.


12

characteristics, experiences, and backgrounds of various prospective students in

order to achieve the university’s educational mission.

The student diversity valued by these differing institutions “takes many

forms,” often including, but extending well beyond, race. Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at

2210; see also Bakke, 438 U.S. at 315 (observing that “[t]he diversity that furthers

a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and

characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important

element”). As the Supreme Court has recognized, there are many different forms

of student diversity, incorporating, for example, those who have “lived or traveled

widely abroad, are fluent in several languages, have overcome personal adversity

and family hardship, have exceptional records of extensive community service, and

have had successful careers in other fields.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 338. Moreover,

student diversity not only varies between institutions; it is also “multi-

dimensional” and layered—flexible enough to allow the same college or graduate

school to pursue several of its many different forms. See Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at

2214 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As a result, colleges and universities use diversity in distinct ways to

advance their vastly different identities, goals, and approaches to education. That

freedom has made college campuses the “laboratories for experimentation” that

they are. Id. (quoting United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581 (1995) (Kennedy,


13

J., concurring)). And it has helped establish American higher education as the

greatest in the world. See, e.g., David F. Labaree, A System Without A Plan:

Emergence of An American System of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century,

3 Int’l J. Historiography Educ. 46, 46 (2013) (concluding that university autonomy

has contributed to American higher education’s “global reach and broad esteem”).

II. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF APPLICANTS, RECOGNIZING THAT HOLISTIC REVIEW IS A CRITICAL TOOL FOR ACHIEVING THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY.

A. Holistic Review, Which Involves The Consideration Of Many Academic And Non-Academic Factors, Allows Institutions To Fully Evaluate Each Applicant, Including His Or Her Potential To Contribute Through Varying Experiences And Perspectives.

Higher education institutions apply holistic review in a variety of ways,

given their different missions and enrollment aims, but at core, holistic review is a

rigorous process involving a mix of academic, non-academic, and contextual

factors that guide expert judgments about applicants and the institution’s

educational program. That is, holistic review is a “highly individualized” process

that “giv[es] serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute” to

a campus community. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337 (emphasis added). High school

grades and standardized test scores alone cannot convey all that an applicant can

offer to a campus community. These numbers say little, for example, about a

student’s character and may understate a student’s potential. Extracurricular


14

activities as well are often only a “single metric . . . [that] will capture certain types

of people and miss others.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2213. Individual subjective

factors, too, often touch on only one piece of a candidate’s overall profile and

merit.

Each institution that uses holistic review therefore strives to consider the

whole of each applicant, looking to a broad spectrum of academic and non-

academic considerations. By way of example, the College Board’s Admissions

Models Project identified nearly 30 academic factors and almost 70 non-academic

factors that are used by institutions in the admissions process. See generally

Gretchen W. Rigol, Coll. Bd., Admissions Decision-Making Models: How U.S.

Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students (2003). 4 The

academic factors considered by many institutions include quantitative metrics,

such as class rank and standardized test scores, but also can incorporate qualitative

measures, such as “[i]ntellectual curiosity” and “[g]rasp of world events.” Id. at 75

(Appendix D). Non-academic factors are even more wide-ranging. They account

for an applicant’s personal background, like her upbringing and life experiences, or

whether she will be the first generation in her family to go to college. Id. at 75-77.

Extracurricular activities and achievements are often considered, along with

unusual obstacles an applicant may have overcome, such as family problems,

4 Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562589.pdf.


15

health challenges, frequent moves, or responsibility for raising a family—to name

just a few. Id. Holistic review can even look to geography, accounting for

whether the prospective student is from a disadvantaged area, or far-away state, or

went to a high school with few or no previous applicants. Id. Lastly, universities

also may consider the race of an applicant, but only when treated in a narrowly

tailored, individualized and flexible manner—for example, as one aspect of the

student’s background and life experience within the all-embracing contextual,

holistic review of an individual applicant. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334.

Because every institution has a distinct mission, the factors that each

considers—and how heavily they are weighed—vary across universities and even

across academic years. See Jerome A. Lucido, How Admissions Decisions Get

Made, in Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management 147, 148-149 (Don

Hollser, Bob Bontrager & Assocs. eds., 2015). Even though holistic review

flexibly considers the totality of intersecting factors, it must begin within each

institution’s own context. As such, no two schools will have exactly the same

holistic review criteria or process. See Rigol, supra, at 1 (“[T]here are almost as

many different approaches to selection as there are institutions.”). Indeed, each

university’s particular mission and characteristics, academic approaches and

philosophies, academic and non-academic programs, and projections and targets


16

for the “yield” of admitted students are all taken into account. Lucido, supra, at

147-149.5

Although each institution applies holistic review differently in the

particulars, “individualized consideration” of the applicant is always the lodestar.

Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334, 337; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 318 n.52 (“denial . . . of this right

to individualized consideration” is the “principle evil”). 6 Accordingly, each

applicant stands on equal “footing for consideration.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334,

337 (citation omitted). Holistic review recognizes that each individual factor

provides the most value when viewed in combination with other application

elements. See, e.g., Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2213 (discussing the importance of

considering non-quantitative factors, such as “a family crisis” that could have

harmed a student’s academic performance). For that reason, no single

5 See also Brief of the College Board, AACRAO, NACAC, and LSAC Amici Curiae, Supporting Respondents, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-981).

6 This individualized review is critical to college admissions systems throughout the country. See, e.g., Undergraduate Admission: Admission Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon Univ., http://coursecatalog.web.cmu.edu/servicesandoptions/undergraduateadmission/ (last visited May 21, 2020) (stating the university makes all necessary efforts to “treat every applicant as an individual and take great care to make [the university’s] admission decisions fair, thorough and sensitive.”); Admission Review Factors and Process, Univ. of Md., https://admissions.umd.edu/apply/admission-review-factors-and-process (last visited May 21, 2020) (“Our admission committee is comprised of a team of professionals who undertake an individualized, rigorous and holistic review of each application, assessing academic merit, achievements and potential in the context of the opportunities and challenges the student faced.”).


17

consideration is sufficient to disqualify a candidate or guarantee their admission.

See Grutter, 539 at 315 (“[E]ven the highest possible score does not guarantee

admission to the Law School. Nor does a low score automatically disqualify an

applicant.” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 337 (“There is no policy, either de

jure or de facto, of automatic acceptance or rejection based on any single ‘soft’

variable.”). 7 Indeed, universities review applications not simply to evaluate a

student’s accomplishments or presentation, but to determine how an applicant took

advantage of opportunities. See Lucido, supra, at 157 (Universities “seek to

understand the conditions under which each applicant has performed and to make

judgments based on the context of those conditions.”).

This individualized process is rigorous, with colleges and universities

usually relying on multi-tiered review processes to assess an applicant’s qualities

on a case-by-case basis. Commonly, training and calibration are part of the

process; after initial readers weigh dozens of factors to make preliminary

determinations, second readers or admissions committees assess the ways an

individual applicant is likely to contribute to a campus community. And

universities are constantly re-evaluating their processes and decision-making,

7 Once again, specific college admissions policies bear out these statements. See, e.g., Penn State Undergraduate Admissions: Application Review Process for First-Year Students, Penn. State Univ., https://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/firstyear/applicationreview/ (last visited May 21, 2020) (“There are no such things as ‘cut offs.’ We review students in a holistic manner, taking into account a full range of factors.”).


18

working to improve and build upon their outcomes year over year. This thorough,

individualized, and ever-evolving process allows schools to identify and admit

students who will further their own school-specific missions.8

Because holistic review focuses on individual applicants, the Supreme Court

has held that consideration of race as one aspect of this process is permissible. See

Grutter, 539 at 337; Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2205 (reaffirming Grutter’s holding to

allow “the University of Michigan Law School’s system of holistic review”). In

contrast to racial quotas or formulas, which the Court has struck down as overly

broad and mechanical, holistic review does not treat “an applicant’s race or

ethnicity [as] the defining feature of his or her application.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at

337. Holistic review reflects the consideration of multiple background factors that

may include race, “ensur[ing] that all factors that may contribute to student body

diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race in admissions decisions.” Id.

B. Admissions Decisions Under A Holistic Review Framework Cannot Be Reduced To An Easy-To-Predict Formula.

Admitting a class is both a science and an art. Although the process is

informed by objective data, there are often qualitative factors that are decisive for

8 See Arthur L. Coleman & Jamie Lewis Keith, CollegeBoard & EducationCounsel, Understanding Holistic Review in Higher Education Admissions: Guiding Principles and Model Illustrations (2018), available athttps://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/understanding-holistic-review-he-admissions.pdf.


19

one candidate or another. Thousands of applicants to Harvard and other highly

selective colleges have literally perfect academic credentials, served as high school

valedictorians, and earned the very top standardized test scores. See Def.’s Mot.

Summ. J. 3-4 & n.4, ECF No. 418 (noting that more than 5,000 domestic

applicants to the Class of 2019 had a perfect math or verbal SAT score, more than

twice the number ultimately admitted (citing SMF ¶¶ 1-2, 5-9)); see also Letter

from Timothy C.J. Blanchard, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Region

II, to Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton Univ. 13 (Sept. 9, 2015)

(“Princeton Compliance Review Letter”) (noting similar statistics for Princeton).9

There are more applicants with top academic scores than available seats. Because

of that fact—and the fact that Harvard and other selective institutions are looking

for students who can contribute more than quantitative academic acumen—

admissions committees must look to a wide range of additional factors to assemble

a class that best suits their needs and goals.

These additional factors are increasingly important across all of higher

education; holistic review is not just for the Ivy League. According to a recent

ACE study, 76 percent of all participating institutions, including 92 percent of

more selective schools, reported using holistic review in their admissions process.

See Lorelle L. Espinosa et al., Am. Council on Educ., Race, Class, & College

9 Available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/02086002-a.pdf.


20

Access: Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape 31-32 (2015).10 Even

schools with unusually large student bodies and applicant pools use holistic review

to admit the students that will best further their educational missions.11 Over 1,000

accredited four-year undergraduate colleges no longer require applicants to submit

standardized test scores. 12 Some institutions have even experimented with a

holistic review process that does not turn on test scores at all. 13 These

institutions—like any other—must look to high school grades, grade trajectory and

qualitative criteria to decide whether to extend an offer of admission.

10 Available at http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Class-and-College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-Shifting-Legal-Landscape.pdf.

11 As just one example, Pennsylvania State University receives over 70,000 undergraduate applications, yet gives each a “holistic assessment,” looking to “academic courses, grades and levels of those courses and standardized test scores, plus additional factors that may include an audition, a portfolio review, the geographic and cultural background of the student, the personal statement, and the activities list.” Penn State Undergraduate Admissions, supra note 7.

12 Natasha Bach, Why the University of Chicago Is Dropping Its SAT/ACT Test Requirement, Fortune (June 15, 2018), http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/university-of-chicago-drops-act-sat-test-requirement-for-admissions/ (“More than 1,000 accredited, four year colleges and universities are now test-optional, including Bates College, Pitzer College, and Wesleyan University.”); Dawn Rhodes, University of Chicago To Stop Requiring ACT and SAT Scores for Prospective Undergraduates, Chi. Trib. (June 14, 2018), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-chicago-sat-act-20180614-story.html.

13 Cecilia Capuzzi Simon, The Test-Optional Surge, N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/education/edlife/the-test-optional-surge.html.


21

Qualitative factors play an even greater role as institutions seek candidates

that will best promote their unique “mission[s].” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214; see

also Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328. These judgments are typically not susceptible to

formulaic decision-making and necessarily entail a degree of judgment by

educators and admissions experts. For example, many medical schools advance

their missions by selecting students with backgrounds and skill sets necessary to

break socio-cultural barriers to access to healthcare. See Joseph R. Betancourt et

al., Defining Cultural Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care, 118 Pub. Health Rep. 293,

297-300 (2003). Careful exercise of such judgment in examination of a

prospective student’s entire application is required to make admission decisions.

The same is true for undergraduate admissions criteria, where each school’s

distinctive mission drives qualitative factors it considers and emphasizes when

assessing many more qualified students than can be admitted. For example, the

New Mexico Military Institute (an ACE Member) seeks to instill military-type

discipline into its students through a highly structured learning environment. To

further its mission, the Institute specifically seeks students who will promote

“qualities of honor, integrity, and responsibility” 14 —an inherently holistic

assessment. On the other end of the spectrum, many schools seek to cultivate a

14 About NMMI, New Mexico Military Inst., https://www.nmmi.edu/about-nmmi/ (last visited May 21, 2020).


22

less structured environment, imposing no curricular requirements and permitting

students to take any class they wish pass/fail.15 Because not all students will thrive

in that type of setting, these universities must actively identify students who “want

to create and navigate their own intellectual journeys.”16 This judgment again calls

for the assessment of qualitative factors, which can be made only after considering

how multiple elements of an application relate to one another.

Admissions decisions therefore cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula

in which courts can look for a binary outcome based on one or a handful of

characteristics alone. Objective factors—like numerical measures of academic or

extracurricular success—tell only part of the story. And all students are evaluated

individually, not as members of any particular group, racial or otherwise. For that

reason, universities “frequently accept[]” white applicants with grades and test

scores lower than certain minority applicants. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 338.

Similarly, a thorough government compliance review showed that Princeton

University “frequently” accepts “applicants from Asian backgrounds with grades

and test scores lower than rejected non-Asian applicants.” See Princeton

15 See The Brown Degree: Grade Options, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/policies/grade-options (last visited May 21, 2020).

16 Undergraduate Admission, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/undergraduate-admission (last visited May 21, 2020).


23

Compliance Review Letter, supra, at 13. In short, both quantitative data and

qualitative assessments drive admissions decisions, no variables are dispositive in

all cases, and every variable takes on new meaning when viewed in the context of

an individual’s entire application and in relation to other applications under review.

Statistical analyses that fail to address or inadequately address the countless

variables involved in admissions decisions can paint distorted pictures that courts

should not accept.

Reversing the district court’s judgment could upend this evolved and

evolving system. In a nation that is more connected and racially and ethnically

diverse than ever, such an outcome would deprive many students of the critical

benefits of student diversity and thus the education they will need as citizens and

leaders in the 21st Century.

III. BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW.

A. Decades Ago, Harvard Helped Establish The Basic Framework For Holistic Review That Has Been Repeatedly Approved By The Supreme Court.

Justice Powell in Bakke stated that Harvard’s admissions policy offers an

“illuminating example” of how to “treat[] each applicant as an individual in the

admissions process.” 438 U.S. at 316, 318. And in Grutter, the Supreme Court

identified Harvard’s admissions policy as a model other institutions should follow.


24

See 539 U.S. at 337 (“Like the Harvard plan, [Michigan] Law School’s admissions

policy ‘is flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of

the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same

footing for consideration . . . .’” (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 317)). See also Gratz

v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 272 (2003) (favoring Harvard’s admissions policy as

“instructive in our consideration of” the University of Michigan’s college

admissions program). Harvard’s system and similar ones in place at hundreds of

institutions nationwide strike the delicate balance between “the pursuit of

[educational] diversity [and] the constitutional promise of equal treatment and

dignity.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214.

B. Harvard’s Current-Day Admissions Policies—Which Are Also Based In Individualized, Holistic Review—Are Consistent With Well-Established Supreme Court Precedent.

As Harvard’s brief explains, a plaintiff bringing an intentional

discrimination case under Title VI “must prove that the defendant acted with

‘racial animus’ against members of a protected class.” Harvard Br. 35 (quoting

Goodman v. Bowdoin Coll., 380 F.3d 33, 43 (1st Cir. 2004)). As Harvard’s brief

also explains, Plaintiff failed to do that. Id. at 35-38.

The District Court correctly concluded, based on the trial evidence, that

Harvard’s admission policy remains wholly consistent with forty years of Supreme

Court precedent upholding holistic review. The Supreme Court has repeatedly


25

made clear that higher education institutions may, within broad limits, define the

diversity that will produce the educational benefits they seek for all students and

may use their admission processes to further that goal. The District Court recited

evidence showing that Harvard is doing that. See ADD106-107. The Supreme

Court has also approved the use of holistic review of applicants, recognizing that it

is a critical component of achieving the educational benefits of diversity. The

District Court recited evidence showing that Harvard’s policy implements holistic

review. See ADD108. The District Court also explained that the evidence showed

that Harvard does not engage in racial balancing or use quotas, but rather it

considers race flexibly, along with many other factors. See ADD113. And the

District Court explained its conclusion, based on an extensive evaluation, that

Harvard considered many race neutral alternatives and adopted those that workably

limited its consideration of race in admissions while furthering its compelling

interest in diversity and its fundamental institutional objectives, including

academic excellence. See ADD120. Given the evidence that supports the District

Court’s findings and conclusions, there is no basis for this Court to second-guess

those rulings. Affirming the decision below is consistent with Supreme Court

precedent.

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary rest on the assumption that college

admissions decisions can be reduced to a formula. As explained above, that is


26

incorrect. Admissions criteria substantially vary between institutions and

incorporate a range of quantitative and qualitative factors. The admissions process

involves academic judgments, and the object of holistic review is to provide

applicants with individualized consideration based on the totality of the

circumstances. Reaching a final decision is far from a formulaic process. Plaintiff

therefore asks the Court to require fundamental changes to university admissions

processes that the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed, and to mandate a more

mechanical process that would supplant academic judgments to which the Supreme

Court has repeatedly deferred. That shift would undermine the recognized

freedom of colleges and universities to assemble a class that, in the institution’s

judgment, will best advance that institution’s particular mission. For that reason,

amici ask the Court to reject Plaintiff’s effort to upset decades of Supreme Court

precedent that has approved of holistic and individualized admissions processes.


27

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the District Court’s

judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jessica L. Ellsworth

PETER MCDONOUGH

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

COUNSEL

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

One Dupont Circle N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 939-9361 [email protected]

Counsel for American Council on Education

JESSICA L. ELLSWORTH

STEPHANIE J. GOLD

JO-ANN TAMILA SAGAR

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5491 [email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae

May 21, 2020


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This document complies with the type-volume limits of Fed. R. App.

P. 32(a)(7) and Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) because, excluding the parts of the

document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), this document contains 6,500 words.

2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6)

because this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using

Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 21, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed through

this Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of filing to all registered

users.



ADDENDUM


A1

ADDENDUM – LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

1. American Council on Education (ACE): More information about ACE can be found at: https://www.acenet.edu

2. The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE): More information about ACPE can be found at: https://www.acpe-accredit.org/

3. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN): More information about AACN can be found at: https://www.aacnnursing.org/

4. American Association of Community Colleges (AACC): More information about AACC can be found at: https://www.aacc.nche.edu/

5. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU): More information about AASCU can be found at: https://aascu.org/

6. American Association of University Professors (AAUP): More information about AAUP can be found at: https://www.aaup.org/

7. American Dental Education Association (ADEA): More information about ADEA can be found at: https://www.adea.org/

8. American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC): More information about AIHEC can be found at: http://www.aihec.org/

9. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA): More information about ASHA can be found at: https://www.asha.org/

10. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U): More information about AAC&U can be found at: https://www.aacu.org/

11. Association of American Law Schools (AALS): More information about AALS can be found at: https://www.aals.org/

12. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): More information about AAMC can be found at: https://www.aamc.org/


A2

13. Association of American Universities (AAU): More information about AAU can be found at: https://www.aau.edu/

14. Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU): More information about ACCU can be found at: https://www.accunet.org/

15. Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT): More information about ACCT can be found at: https://www.acct.org/

16. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB): More information about AGB can be found at: https://agb.org/

17. Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU): More information about AJCU can be found at: https://www.ajcunet.edu/

18. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU): More information about APLU can be found at: https://www.aplu.org/

19. The College Board: More information about The College Board can be found at: https://www.collegeboard.org/

20. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR): More information about CUPA-HR can be found at: https://www.cupahr.org/

21. Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU): More information about CCCU can be found at: https://www.cccu.org/

22. Council for Opportunity in Education (COE): More information about COE can be found at: http://www.coenet.org/

23. Council of Graduate Schools (CGS): More information about CGS can be found at: https://cgsnet.org/

24. Council of Independent Colleges (CIC): More information about CIC can be found at: https://www.cic.edu/


A3

25. EDUCAUSE: More information about EDUCAUSE can be found at: https://www.educause.edu/

26. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU): More information about HACU can be found at: https://www.hacu.net

27. Law School Admission Council (LSAC): More information about LSAC can be found at: https://www.lsac.org/

28. Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE): More information about MSCHE can be found at: https://www.msche.org/

29. NASPA - Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education: More information about NASPA can be found at: https://www.naspa.org/

30. National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC): More information about NACAC can be found at: https://www.nacacnet.org/

31. National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO): More information about NACUBO can be found at: https://www.nacubo.org/

32. National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE): More information about NADOHE can be found at: https://www.nadohe.org/

33. National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU): More information about NAICU can be found at: https://www.naicu.edu/

34. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA): More information about NASFAA can be found at: https://www.nasfaa.org/

35. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): More information about NCAA can be found at: http://www.ncaa.org/

36. New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE): More information about NECHE can be found at: https://www.neche.org/


A4

37. Phi Beta Kappa: More information about Phi Beta Kappa can be found at: https://www.pbk.org/

38. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC): More information about SACSCOC can be found at: https://sacscoc.org/

39. The Common Application: More information on The Common Application can be found at: https://www.commonapp.org/

40. University Risk Management and Insurance Association (URMIA): More information about URMIA can be found at: https://www.urmia.org/home

41. WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC): More information about WSCUC can be found at: https://www.wscuc.org/


N HE United States Court of Appeals for the First …...graduation. 1 All parties have consented to...

Documents

Transcript of N HE United States Court of Appeals for the First …...graduation. 1 All parties have consented to...